I vote for no numbers just names. and if any contain the word leet or uber or ultra, the ceo's should be fired
Printable View
I vote for no numbers just names. and if any contain the word leet or uber or ultra, the ceo's should be fired
I really just wish they would create a simple naming system and stick to it, their current one is getting out of hand with all this renaming going on.
I don't care what they name them as long as they really do come out next month and 2 of them rock my 30" like I've never sen before :D
yeah imma get one for sure..........hope its really launching in june.
If this is launching in June then what happened to the 9900?Quote:
Originally Posted by GAR
I dont think there is a 9900 anymore, nvidia had stated before they are going to simplify the naming scheme of their cards, hence why its the gtx 280/260, high the better.Quote:
Originally Posted by DFI pit bull
haha BBQ
I don't see why people think that this is so confusing to the normal consumer, if you look at the back of the box in most cases, it has the series of cards listed and how "better" they are in order, and if you really think about it. Comparing old series to new series cards. There really isn't any other way to do it. What Nvidia has picked is the less confusing possible for the market I think. Maybe we should have a brainstorm Geforce naming scheme thread.
The only thing i can think of. is GS V1, V2, V3. GT V1, V2, V3....and so on. But that sounds dumb and is still pretty much the same thing as what Nvidia is doing with this new number letter scheme. If you really think about it, you have got to be an idiot to not figure out the new scheme. I mean S comes before T so obviously the GS is slower than the GT and GTX is obviously faster than GT and GTS is obviously between GT and GTX because of the Combining of the S and T. then you have numbers such as 240-260-280 to tell which is faster in that letter series. How much more plainly could you put it. I know its hard for the normal consumer to understand which is the faster card from the past series. But there really is no other way of doing it, besides them looking it up. unless they do a comparison on the back of the box to the older series of cards.
boy I wish we had some actual specs or performance numbers so we could stop talking about something as meaningless as naming schemes :p
Yeah... GT200 is exciting but we don't even know if it's going to be worth it.
how many people have the opportunity to look at the retail box before they buy the product?Quote:
Originally Posted by Decami
personally, i didn't have any retail boxes in my hands before buying for over 5 years...
obvious? sry, but it's not obvious at all... S comes before T? so why didn't they choose a GeForce A1, A2 etc.. and GeForce B1, B2 etc... - THAT would be obvious, but not GT, GS, GTX and GTS.Quote:
I mean S comes before T so obviously the GS is slower than the GT and GTX is obviously faster than GT and GTS is obviously between GT and GTX because of the Combining of the S and T.
if you'd have absolutely no clue about nvidia's naming scheme it's everything but obvious what GT, GS, GTS and GTX mean...
Exactly how accurate are those stats? They sound a little too good to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceaddict
No way to be certain, imo with all the speculation surrounding the new cards it's better to just wait and see what the specs when the cards are released rather than get hyped up by speculation.
I'm hoping that the 280 will run cooler than most high end cards do, though if it has those specs I doubt it will. The 9800GTX is just too hot! 60C at idle for me.
But if the card is coming out June 18, then we should be finding out some solid information soon enough.
why 448-bit and 896mb? sounds a bit too uneven to me. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
Still no DX 10.1 support? so just a respin of old tech? Not flaming , just asking. Are they not going to support dx10.1 for this generation?
how is the 384-bit and 768Mb on the 8800GTX ?Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
768mb = 64 * 12 (3x 4 chips). 896mb = 64 * 14?? 128 * 7?? i don't know, sounds odd to me :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ANP !!!
but you're right about the 384-bit, so nvm :D
DX10.1 is for nothing ... forget about this wrongly AMD implemented crap ... in their famous HD3800 ... :rolleyes:
This GeForce GTX 280 Spec is very very close to reality, but one thing is missing ... i cannot to tell what, because NDA ... TOO launch is many earlier then we expected ...
I think that's a boring naming scheme, "look at XFX's uberclocked 1b ULTRA!!1".Quote:
Originally Posted by Origin_Unknown
OBR sounds like a biased nV fanboy, don't listen to his pro-nV crap.
:shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightning_Rider
Mine doesn't even get that high under load when overclocked to the max it can go on stock air and the fan is it 40%. But I'd expect the GT200 to be around the same temps as the 8800GTX or maybe a bit higher.
Really? What kind of temps do you get and what program do you use to view your temps?
I just checked again with eVGAs precision tool and it reads 62C. Fan is at 39%.
BTW... I have a question about eVGA's step up. Say we step up to the 280, do they send us a brand new card still in the box or is it a refurbished one or used etc.
Rivatuner and the EVGA precision tool both give me around 43C idle and 58C load at 825/2000/2400 (core/shader/memory) and the fan is set to 35% not 40% like I thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightning_Rider
Lol DX_10.1 is made by Microsoft. To AMD adress DX_10.1 they had to change 0.0 (zero point zero) their arquitecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
Your comment yes, is crap.